Lina Suleiman

Geodesign supports collaborative urban planning by managing ‘boundaries’ between diverse knowledge holders. However, there is a paucity of empirical evidence of its contribution to ‘boundary work’. This paper aims to evaluate how a geodesign process facilitates knowledge co-production through boundary work and to assess the scientific credibility, political saliency, and procedural legitimacy of its outputs in urban planning. We propose a replicable geodesign framework to assess boundary work, and test it in a case study on urban transformations with nature-based solutions in the Skarpnäck district of Stockholm, Sweden. Findings indicate that all geodesign steps facilitated communication by promoting collective reasoning. Participants acknowledged contributions to knowledge co-production and decision-making by mediating between different perspectives. However, data quality and modeling simplicity were identified as critical factors affecting the outputs’ perceived credibility. Future applications should include co-designing the geodesign process, improving capacity and skills, and facilitating more integrated planning.

The term nature-based solutions (NBS) has gained traction in recent years and has been applied in many settings. There are few comprehensive assessment frameworks available that can guide NBS planning and implementation while at the same time capturing the short- and long-term impacts and benefits of the NBS. Here a recently presented framework, which builds on the theory of change and was developed to assess NBS at different phases of the project cycle, was applied to seven diverse case studies. The case studies addressed water quality and quantity issues in peri-urban areas across the global north and south. Framework indicators covering the sustainability dimensions (environmental, social and economic) were assessed at three stages of the framework: context, process and results. The work sought to investigate the following research objectives: (1) Can this framework be robust and yet flexible enough to be applied across a diverse selection of NBS projects that are at different phases of the project cycle and address different kinds of water challenges within varied ecological, social and economic contexts? (2) Is it possible to draw generalisations from a comparative analysis of the application of the framework to the case studies? Results showed that the framework was able to be applied to the case studies; however, their diversity showed that NBS projects designed in one context, for a specific purpose in a specific location, can not necessarily be transferred easily to another location. There were several process-based indicators that were universally significant for the case studies, including expertise, skills and knowledge of the involved actors, roles and responsibilities of involved actors and political support. The result-based indicators were case study-specific when environmental indicators were case study-specific, and important social indicators were environmental identity and recreational values. Overall, the use of the framework benefits the recognition of the implementation’s advances, such as the change in context, the processes in place and the results obtained.

Recent efforts to achieve social, economic, and environmental goals related to sustainability emphasize the importance of nature-based solutions (NBS), as grey infrastructure alone is insufficient to address current challenges. The majority of frameworks proposed in the literature fail to address the full potential of NBS, neglecting long-term results, unintended consequences, co-benefits, and their contribution to achieving global environmental agreements, such as the Agenda 2030, especially for water management in a peri-urban context. Here we present an innovative framework that can be applied to both NBS project planning and evaluation for several water-based challenges, giving practitioners and researchers a tool not only to evaluate ongoing projects but also to guide new ones. The framework considers three main stages of a NBS project: (1) context assessment, (2) NBS implementation and adaptation process, and (3) NBS results. This tool has the potential to be used to evaluate whether NBS projects are aligned with sustainability dimensions through a set of adaptable sustainability indicators. The framework can also highlight how the NBS targets are related to the sustainable development goals (SGD) and contribute to catalyzing the 2030 Agenda. The framework is an important tool for water management and other NBS types.

This article uses game theory as a conceptual approach to gain a holistic understanding of the aid policy of donors supporting Palestinian nongovernmental organizations (PNGOs). It asks how the work of donor-funded PNGOs has impacted Palestinian societal common good in general, and who are the winners and losers as a result of their work. Quantitative methods are used to capture the perceptions of the main actors in relation to the societal outcomes of PNGOs’ work and actors’ political and socio-economic payoffs in the occupied West Bank. Most of the findings align with much of the critical research on the negative societal outcomes of the aid policy to the NGO sector, and corroborate that the Palestinian public is a major loser in political terms and the least beneficiary in socio-economic terms.

Sustainability concerns and multiple socio-environmental pressures have necessitated a shift towards Sustainable Urban Water Management (SUWM) systems. Viewing SUWM systems as sociotechnical, this paper departs from eight factors previously identified by transition research: Pressures, Context, Purposes, Actors, Instruments, Processes, Outputs, and Outcomes as a methodological framework for a structured review of 100 articles. The study seeks to analyze empirical cases of planning and implementing SUWM systems worldwide. A wide range of public actors—driven by social and environmental factors rather than by economic pressures—have initiated SUWM projects so as to locally fulfill defined social and environmental purposes. We provide evidence on the emergence of new actors, such as experts, users, and private developers, as well as on the diverse and innovative technical and societal instruments used to promote and implement SUWM systems. We also explore their contexts and institutional capacity to deal with pressures and to mobilize significant financial and human resources, which is in itself vital for the transition to SUWM. Planned or implemented SUWM outputs are divided into green (wet ponds, raingardens, and green roofs) and gray (rain barrels and porous pavements) measures. The outcomes of SUWM projects—in terms of societal and technical learning, and their institutional uptakes—are often implicit or lacking, which seemingly reduces the rate of desirable change.

Urban rainwater management is the terrain of varied initiatives that challenge existing drainage systems. The initiatives that this article refers to as Urban Rainwater Harvesting (URH), promise a more sustainable urban water approach; however, they remain isolated “niche” projects. The article aims to investigate challenges and opportunities for mainstreaming alternative URHs as sociotechnical systems (STS). It identifies six analytical categories: context, actors, instruments, processes/dynamics, outputs and impacts as a framework for the analyses of URH projects in Stockholm, Berlin and Barcelona. Despite the diversity of socio-spatial contexts, driving forces, purposes, instruments used, technical designs and scale of URH projects, relevant factors for a breakthrough of these systems are discussed. Even though URHs have not yet become a common component of rainwater management in any of the cities, context-specific combinations of these factors are found to be essential if these systems are to become complementary options for the sustainable management of rainwater in cities.

The role of civil society in the improvement of equitable development and the stimulation of democratic culture has been notably recognised by international development agencies. In the new policy of ‘good governance’ that proposes progress regarding development and democracy in parallel in the developing countries, civil society is often represented by non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This paper bases its arguments primarily on theories in relation to the role of civil society with regard to development and democracy to raise concerns about current policy trends of ‘good governance’ in the general context of developing countries with the main focus on Africa. The concerns are substantiated by empirical verification through a review of literature. The paper concludes that NGOs are unlikely to have the strength to either promote development or foster democracy.

There is an assumption that the inclusion of civil society in governance processes promotes democratic performance and contributes to 'good governance', in the sense of pluralism, accountability and transparency. This paper refers to the governance process of the water utility in Accra involving the private sector, and examines the validity of the assumed roles regarding the inclusion of civil society in the governance process. For the purposes of this study, civil society is defined as 'non-state and non-market organisations that can, or have the potential to, champion democratic governance reforms and act as agents for political and socio-economic change'. Contrary to assumptions made about the inclusion of civil society, the analysis herein shows that the inclusion of civil groups in the governance process of the water utility led to hostile and undemocratic processes and to weak indicators of 'good governance'. The main concern of the key actors was centred on how to build consensus around the privatisation programme of the water utility. 'Managing consensus', however, is an inappropriate planning measure. It is argued here that the focus should rather be on how to design governance structures and arrangements, mobilised by legitimate and committed political leadership, to build and enhance the capacity of governance processes.QC 20100628. QC 20120210 (Published